[STATEMENT] Defend the People and Planet from Wars of Aggression

 

Asia Pacific Network for Environmental Defenders (APNED) – Earth Day Statement 2026

The Asia Pacific Network for Environmental Defenders (APNED) stands in solidarity with peoples around the world in commemorating Earth Day. This global observance is not only a celebration of our planet, but a critical reminder of our shared responsibility to uphold ecological balance and defend the human right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

Earth Day calls on us to confront the structural drivers of environmental destruction. Among the most urgent of these is global militarism—an often overlooked yet deeply destructive force accelerating climate change, ecological degradation, and human rights violations.

This year, APNED underscores the urgent need to end wars of aggression, particularly in light of recent escalations involving the United States in Iran, alongside the continuing attacks of “Israel” on Palestine.

War is fundamentally incompatible with environmental sustainability.

Military operations are a major and underreported source of greenhouse gas emissions. Estimates indicate that global military activities account for approximately 5.5% of total global emissions, a figure comparable to that of major industrial economies.¹ The U.S. military alone remains the world’s largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels.² Modern warfare—through airstrikes, weapons production, logistics, and reconstruction—creates a massive and long-term carbon footprint.

Beyond emissions, wars devastate ecosystems and human settlements. Bombardments destroy urban infrastructure, contaminate soil and water, and generate hazardous debris that persists for decades. In Gaza, for instance, the destruction of buildings and infrastructure has displaced millions and created severe environmental health risks, including toxic dust exposure, sewage contamination, and the collapse of waste management systems.³

Wars also intensify extractive industries. The production of weapons and military equipment requires vast quantities of metals, minerals, and fossil fuels. This drives expanded mining operations—often in ecologically sensitive and conflict-affected areas—further displacing communities and accelerating biodiversity loss.⁴

At the same time, militarism diverts immense public resources away from urgent social and environmental needs. Global military expenditure reached over USD 2.4 trillion in 2024, continuing its upward trend.⁵ These resources could instead fund climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, ecological restoration, and essential public services. The United Nations has emphasized that rebalancing military spending is critical to achieving sustainable development and lasting peace.⁶

Asia and the Pacific are at the frontline of both climate vulnerability and intensifying militarization.

Strategic military doctrines, such as the United States’ “island chain” strategy, have expanded military bases, installations, and exercises across the region—including in Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Guam, and other Pacific Island territories. These developments are closely tied to geopolitical rivalries and carry profound environmental consequences.

The Pacific region offers some of the clearest examples of militarism’s long-term ecological harm. In the Marshall Islands, decades of U.S. nuclear testing at Bikini and Enewetak Atolls have left lasting radioactive contamination, rendering lands uninhabitable and ecosystems severely damaged. Similarly, in Guam, ongoing base expansions have led to deforestation, coral reef destruction, and strain on freshwater resources.

In Okinawa, Japan, the concentration of U.S. military bases has resulted in land degradation, pollution, and persistent community resistance due to environmental and social impacts. In the Philippines, large-scale military exercises have raised concerns over marine ecosystem disruption, waste generation, and restricted access to fishing grounds.

Across the region, military activities generate greenhouse gas emissions, degrade terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and limit access to traditional livelihoods. Coastal communities, Indigenous peoples, and fisherfolk are disproportionately affected, as militarized zones encroach on ancestral lands and waters.

Military infrastructure development—including airstrips, ports, and weapons storage facilities—often results in deforestation, coral reef damage, and pollution. These impacts worsen existing climate vulnerabilities in a region already facing sea-level rise, intensifying storms, and biodiversity loss.

Moreover, emerging military technologies including autonomous weapons systems and space-based weapons pose new and unpredictable risks to environmental security and global stability.⁷ These developments further entrench a model of “security” that prioritizes dominance over sustainability and cooperation.

Addressing the climate crisis requires confronting militarism as a central driver of environmental harm.

APNED calls on governments, institutions, and peoples worldwide to:

• Demand an immediate end to wars of aggression and military occupations, particularly those led and backed by powerful states such as the United States;
• Challenge the global arms race and push for substantial reductions in military spending, redirecting resources toward climate action, social protection, and ecological rehabilitation;
• Oppose the expansion of military bases, exercises, and infrastructure across Asia and the Pacific and other regions;
• Strengthen regional and international solidarity among environmental defenders, human rights movements, and affected communities.

Earth Day must go beyond symbolic gestures. It must serve as a platform for collective action against the systems that perpetuate environmental destruction and injustice.

A just and sustainable future cannot be built in a world at war. To defend the Earth is to demand peace.

References

1. Stuart Parkinson and Linsey Cottrell, Estimating the Military’s Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Conflict and Environment Observatory / Scientists for Global Responsibility (2022). https://ceobs.org/estimating-the-militarys-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
2. Neta C. Crawford, Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War, Brown University (2019).
3. United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Impacts of Armed Conflict (various reports).
4. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, Excessive Military Expenditure and its Impact on Sustainable Development (online course). https://disarmamenteducation.org/#/en/courses/130
5. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Military Expenditure Database (2025). https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex
6. United Nations, The True Cost of Peace: Rebalancing World Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future (2023). https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/the-true-cost-of-peace
7. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Emerging Military and Security Technologies (2024). https://www.sipri.org/research/armament-and-disarmament/emerging-military-and-security-technologies